The idea that we are living in a vast computer simulation as hyper-sophisticated simulated characters with limited self-awareness sounds like the kind of thing that issues forth from stoned philosophy majors in late night dorm room sessions. And no doubt it has, thousands of times over, especially after 1999, when The Matrix debuted and turned an amalgam of Plato, Descartes, Berkeley, and other metaphysicians into a then-cutting-edge sci-fi kung fu flick.

But is it a ridiculous idea? The obvious objection that first arises is: how could we possibly ever know? Computer simulated characters, after all, have no ability to step beyond the confines of the worlds designed for them by programmers, a limitation illustrated when one reaches a dead-end in a game and finds that, while there may be the image of a forest or a field, the game designers have seen no need to actually create the environment. Our character bumps up against the game's edge stupidly, until we toggle the controls and move it back into the prescribed field of play.

But (fire up your bongs), does the character know it’s reached a dead end? And if the universe is a simulation, who’s running the damned thing? And why? Welcome to “the simulation argument,” a theory endorsed by philosopher and futurologist Nick Bostrom, Tesla and Space X founder Elon Musk, and quite a few other non-dorm-dwelling thinkers. “Many people have imagined this scenario over the years,” writes Joshua Rothman at The New Yorker, “usually while high. But recently, a number of philosophers, futurists, science-fiction writers, and technologists—people who share a near-religious faith in technological progress—have come to believe that the simulation argument is not just plausible, but inescapable.”

Given their quasi-religious bent, are these technologists and futurists simply replacing a creator-god with a creator-coder to flatter themselves? Judge for yourself, firstly perhaps by listening to Musk explain the concept in brief at a Recode Conference above. (If you find yourself comforted by his answer, you may just be a game designer.) Then, for a more sprawling, pop-cultural dive into the simulation argument, spend an hour with The Simulation Hypothesis at the top of the post, a documentary that—depending on the laws of your current place of residence—may or may not be enhanced by an edible.

We might also reference Bostrom’s 2003 article---or watch him describe his position in the video below. Bostrom speculates that we might be living in an “ancestor simulation” run by an incredibly advanced civilization thousands of years in our future. Like Musk, writes Rothman, he concludes that “we are far more likely to be living inside a simulation right now than to be living outside of one.” The possibility raises all sorts of disturbing questions about the reality of choice, the moral meaning of our actions, and the nature of human identity. These are questions philosophers (and Philip K. Dick) have always asked, but until recently, they had little recourse to independent confirmation of their hypotheses. Now, as you'll discover in The Simulation Hypothesis, physicists have begun to discover that "our universe isn't an objective reality."

It is indeed perfectly plausible, given the exponential speed with which technology advances, that we will be able to run simulations with the same level of sophistication as our reality in a matter of a few generations or less… provided we don't destroy ourselves first or completely lose interest. Which answers the question of who might be running the program. As with the higher beings in Interstellar who reach back to give the dying human species a hand, “there is,” writes Rothman, “no sanctity or holiness in the simulation argument. The people outside the simulation aren’t gods," or even aliens, "they’re us.” Or some sufficiently evolved version, that is, whose technological achievements would likely seem to us like magic.

NASA physicist and philosopher, Tom Campbell, was onto this decades ago. His YouTube videos are extremely good and important to see if one wants to understand the nature of reality and consciousness. Campbell is the expert; most of the others are theorists.

As digital simulation gets better over time, so does our ability to manipulate matter at an atomic level. There’s no reason to assume that in 10k years we’d be limited to digital simulation…a fully organic replication of life is well within the realm of (eventual) possibility.

Maybe someone with actual computing knowledge can shoot me down, but isn’t there a fourth possibility to Nick Bostrom’s hypothesis?

Namely, isn’t it possible that the potential power of computing has a limit and that that limit is well below creating a simulation of our universe’s complexity? We know that silicon atoms can only handle so much proximity, so we’re theoretically talking about quantum computers and even if they can handle this much computation (again I have no idea) can we practically or theoretically ever create them? Isn’t there at least a possibility that we can’t, no matter how advanced? Or that they wouldn’t be able to handle processing the universe, even if they could?

And Randy, I think that’s what he’s saying, that the universe is the simulation though both are interesting concepts, existentially if you consider how much overlap there would have to be for even one of our consciousness to be a simulation. Though the entertainment of that idea would take a certain amount of hubris and/or narcissism if one was to believe no one else existed except for our perception… Again mind-boggling to contemplate!

rus: One can, figuratively speaking, judge a book by its cover, one can flip through the pages and catch a glimpse of its ideas, one can read it through carefully, one can even try to apply the ideas of a book in actual practice. What you did there is wave a dismissive, flippant hand in the general direction of the notion of “reading.”

Is interesting the theory… But I think that if you can’t know for sure is life is a simulation then ate the end it really does not matter… Nobody will know. Is like God. Nobody can prove the existence of God so why bother with religion… what matters is to live the present and try to make the best of it.

A question from the post: “The obvious objection that first arises is: how could we possibly ever know?”

I would recommend, and often do, checking out the ideas of S James Gates, a physicist at the University of Maryland–a mainstream institution–who has claimed to find, within the mathematics of fundamental physics, information that resembles error correction coding. Has the aroma of falsity for sure, but who knows, and it’s just an interesting example of an actual stab at piercing the matrix. There’s a long, substantive video, recommended, with Dr Gates and others, presided over by no less than Neil deGrasse Tyson: http://www.space.com/32543-universe-a-simulation-asimov-debate.html

Another question from the post: “Given their quasi-religious bent, are these technologists and futurists simply replacing a creator-god with a creator-coder to flatter themselves?” I say, absolutely yes, and you are spot on.

Whether it’s a program running on a substrate technology, or just laws of physics describing the characteristics of a substrate material, an undeniable truth is this: there is somehow an awesome ENERGY, a constant movement of everything everywhere, driving this thing. None of these explanations address that energy in the substrate. It doesn’t much help to say that it’s just computers all the way down.

FREE UPDATES!

GET OUR DAILY EMAIL

Get the best cultural and educational resources on the web curated for you in a daily email. We never spam. Unsubscribe at any time.

FOLLOW ON SOCIAL MEDIA

About Us

Open Culture editor Dan Colman scours the web for the best educational media. He finds the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & movies you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.